[ale] [OT] Software and file formats for on-line/correspondence chemical education

[rhia]

(Top post, deal.)

The major reason teachers used to ask for (and hopefully the main reason
they still do) shown work was to counter-act cheating for the answer
over the geek's shoulder. In some ways, I still hold to that. Showing
your work shows you understand how the process works. What we should be
teaching is HOW to learn, IOW, the process of learning. While in school,
esp middle and high schools, I, personally, think that students SHOULD
be required to show the process. However, I do NOT think they should be
counted wrong if their process varies from their teacher's if the same
process works for all variables plugged into the equation.

rhia


On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 20:51 -0500, Sean Kilpatrick wrote:
> This reminds me of a fight my son had with a math prof in an advanced 
> calculus class -- diff e if memory serves.  On one test question, my son, 
> Douglas, had simply put down the answer, without showing any work.  He was 
> downgraded by the grad. asst. grader for failure to show work. So he 
> complained about the grade to the prof, saying, in effect, "this is a math 
> class! All that should count is the correct answer.  If the answer is 
> wrong, then, maybe, I get credit for showing the work.  But the answer was 
> obvious. No need to show the work."
> Prof. agreed and fixed the grade.
> 
> In mathematics, what counts is the correct answer.  Nobody should care how 
> you got the answer -- as long as you didn't cheat.
> 
> Now unit conversions get ugly in chemistry and physics.  Especially in the 
> "good old days" when all we had were slide rules.  How to keep things 
> straight was pounded into us in high school classes -- more than 50 years 
> ago. God knows what students are being taught in high school physics and 
> chemistry classes today.!  At least they do not have to learn how to use a 
> slide rule. :) Or an HP programable calculator! 
> Of course, I didn't have to learn about quarks, meons and a bunch of other 
> sub-atomic (theoretical) particles in high school either.
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, January 22, 2012 05:59:34 pm Ron Frazier wrote:
> > The point was to teach the students unit conversions, and how to solve
> > such a problem by completely documenting it and providing appropriate
> > ratios and conversion factors at each step and writing down each step
> > so someone else could follow it, or grade it.  So, we convert trips to
> > miles, miles to feet, feet to inches, inches to bills, etc.  The point
> > was not to solve the problem in 5 minutes in your head, in which case
> > they get a zero for the part where they are required to show their
> > work.
> > 
> > Ron
> > 
> > On 1/22/2012 5:40 PM, Drifter wrote:
> > > You've got to be kidding.  It really took more than 90 seconds to
> > > solve this problem?
> > > 
> > > If a dollar bill is 6" long, then 2 to the foot.
> > > at 5,280 feet to the mile that is 10,650 bills to the mile. (btm)
> > > tack 5 zeros on to the end gets you to the moon: 1,065,000,000 bills.
> > > double that to get the round trip total: 2,130,000,000 bills.
> > > 
> > > My opinion of DeVry students just took a significant hit.
> > > 
> > > Sean
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -------------------------
> > > 
> > >> On 1/21/12 2:43 PM, Ron Frazier wrote:
> > >>> I was once teaching a basic math class at DeVry.  I spent most of a
> > >>> class period and filled up two white boards doing this exact type
> > >>> of conversions.  My hypothetical question to the class was, how
> > >>> many dollar bills (assuming 6" long) would it take to reach end to
> > >>> end to and from the moon if the moon is 100,000 mi. away (I don't
> > >>> really know how far away the moon is).  It was quite interesting,
> > >>> and the example, which I made up on the spur of the moment, turned
> > >>> out to be a bit harder and longer to solve that I thought. 
> > >>> However, I think I made my point of how critical it is to keep
> > >>> track of all the units at each point and write your ratios in the
> > >>> right order, so if you need inches / ft., you don't write ft. /
> > >>> inch.  We finally got the answer, using no automated conversions
> > >>> on the calculator at all.  I was rather proud of the example, but
> > >>> I think the students were glad when the bell rang.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Sincerely,
> > >>> 
> > >>> Ron
> > >>> 
> > >>> On 1/21/2012 10:37 AM, Tom Freeman wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>> <snip>
> > >>> 
> > >>>> To continue with a sequence of conversions:
> > >>>>                        _75.2 in_ = _?_ cm_
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> convert in ->    cm      1 in       2.54 cm  ===>    191.008 cm
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>                        _191.008_cm   = _?_m_
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> convert cm ->    m      100 cm         1 m   ===>    1.91008 m
> > >>>> 
> > >>>>                        _1.91008_m_  = _?_Km_
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> convert m ->    Km      1000 m        1 Km   ===>    0.00191008 Km
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>